Four Supreme Court Justices Weigh in on How June's Gay Marriage Decision Was Improper

[Silhouette]

THIS THREAD KEEPS GETTING DELETED EVERY DAY NOW FOR NO REASON. THERE IS NO MODERATOR MESSAGE, NO WARNING. THE STAFF JUST SIMPLY DELETES IT. I WILL REPOST IT EVERY DAY (I have it saved now) UNTIL THE STAFF HERE GIVES A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR THIS THREAD THAT GOT THOUSANDS OF VIEWS WITHIN THE FIRST WEEK AND HUNDREDS OF REPLIES "CAN'T BE DISCUSSED AT USMB"..

From this link: http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/25...nst-supreme-courts-huge-gay-marriage-decision

And now also this one merged with the shut down one too: Four Supreme Court Justices Summarize How June's Gay-Marriage Decision Was Improper/Illegal | Page 186 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Justice Antonin Scalia
According to Scalia, the majority ruling represents a “judicial Putsch.”
Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide.
“Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best,” Scalia wrote. “But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law.”

Justice Clarence Thomas

Thomas, echoing a grievance expressed by many conservative politicians, also lamented that the Supreme Court’s decision is enshrining a definition of marriage into the Constitution in a way that puts it “beyond the reach of the normal democratic process for the entire nation.”

Justice Samuel Alito
Alito also reaffirmed his position that there is no way to confirm what the outcome of gay marriage may be on the institution of traditional marriage, and therefore the Court is and should not be in a position to take on the topic...“At present, no one—including social scientists, philosophers, and historians—can predict with any certainty what the long-term ramifications of widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage will be. And judges are certainly not equipped to make such an assessment,” Alito wrote. Alito said that traditional marriage has existed between a man and woman for one key reason: children.

As to that last point: Should Kids Have Had Representation at the Marriage-Contract Revision Hearing? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now, I'm not a super powerful lawyer but it seems to me there may be simple contract case law that says if a contract is up for radical revision, the parties who are tacitly signed on to that contract, like children or the states that look after them as future citizens, must have representation at the revision-table.

Not only did that not happen for children and the states' interest in protecting them and their own fiscal future directly impacted by what happens to them growing up, but when adult children raised in gay homes submitted amicus briefs to that revision tribunal, the tribunal (The Fascist-Five) flatly ignored their pleas that they longed for both a mother and father in their home; and that longing damaged them.

Not one word that I know of in June's Opinion addressed these contract parties' concerns. Nor were there attorneys present at the hearing as guardians ad litem for childrens' voices at the table. The most important parties to the marriage contract were systematically barred from the table discussing its radical revision. Not only would contract case law come into play here, but also federal child endangerment statutes. Neglecting to allow a child's voice to cry out in protest is still neglect.

Thomas writes further:

“In our society, marriage is not simply a governmental institution; it is a religious institution as well,” Thomas wrote. “Today’s decision might change the former, but it cannot change the latter. It appears all but inevitable that the two will come into conflict, particularly as individuals and churches are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples.”

And what do you know? Several cases are on their way back to the Court in less than 6 months time on that precise loggerhead of Law. The crap will really hit the fan when Chuck & Dave go to suing a catholic adoption agency for refusing to adopt little boys to them.

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, it's funny when free speech is silently killed.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's where we were when "someone" at USMB control-central disappeared the topic with a lock:

mdk said: ↑
Prohibiting gays from getting married doesn't stop them from raising their biological and adoptive children. It does ensure that their children will never have married parents. Unless you plan on outlawing gays from raising their biological or adoptive children than you are merely shouting at the rain.

Then according to your "anyone who has children must be able to marry" argument and logic, applied equally, means that singles, polygamists and incest parents may now all legally marry. Unless you're eager to discriminate against people having children already having the benefits of marriage?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Lol "singles"

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This has been done to death and no one cares. You lost. Move on with your life. This clock does not turn backwards...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And just to help you out:

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Society has also closed the debate, which is why your thread is no longer needed.

 

[Silhouette]

This has been done to death and no one cares. You lost. Move on with your life. This clock does not turn backwards...

Is that why the original thread got multiple thousands of views and almost two hundred replies in less than a week's time? (and closed twice without explanation)... Because people are "sick of the topic?". If you read Justice Roberts' observations, you are behaving like a fascist, just like the Fascist-Five behaved last Spring, closing children away from the radical-revision of marriage contract discussion and Decision.. In spite of people wanting very badly to weigh in on a new cult of behaviors taking over the word "marriage" legally, you want to put duct tape around their mouths and hope our republic sails along smoothly...right up to Chuck and Dave getting little boys from the catholic adoption agencies....OR ELSE!..

Read up on the rise of the Third Reicht just prior to WWII when you get a minute. A racial struggle never put Christians in jail...

 

[konradv]

Then according to your "anyone who has children must be able to marry" argument and logic, applied equally, means that singles, polygamists and incest parents may now all legally marry. Unless you're eager to discriminate against people having children already having the benefits of marriage?

I think it got locked because of stupid arguments like this being posted repeatedly. The ruling has nothing to do with incest or polygamy and how stupid is the notion that there's something wrong with singles marrying?!?!

 

[Pop23]

And just to help you out:

Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts’s argument centered around the need to preserve states’ rights rather than follow the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said, “Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.”

Society has also closed the debate, which is why your thread is no longer needed.

I disagree. To us more progressive individuals, it not only did not close the issue, but opened a reassessment as to the actual reason this (marriage) exists as a civil contract at all.

 

[Arianrhod]

This has been done to death and no one cares. You lost. Move on with your life. This clock does not turn backwards...

Is that why the original thread got multiple thousands of views and almost two hundred replies in less than a week's time?

Is that your goal? Post counts? Really?

I'd like to read your response to Post 7. Or maybe an indication that you understand that every non-unanimous SCOTUS decision requires statements from the dissenting justices like the ones you keep citing.

Either would be helpful. Both would be extraordinary.

 

[easyt65]

It's done...in Hillary Clinton's words, "What difference does it make (now)?"

 

[Silhouette]

Is that your goal? Post counts? Really?.

Where can you quote me saying my goal was post counts? Insert words into people's mouths often do you? The point I was making that with multiple thousands of views and hundreds of posts in even just a couple days' time meant this thread was IMMENSELY popular: and locked therefore without reason.

The point being that nobody objected formally to the topic. Nor was any explanation given or could even be manifest since it was so popular. Yet *poof*...it was locked...twice...in less than 24 hours. This is the THIRD attempt to post in just about a week's time..

Let's see how long it takes for another LGBT activist to snap it shut. Maybe that will be the new sub-theme of this thread: taking bets. Anyone? I say..two days after an artificial flame war kicks up again..

 

[mdk]

Yeah, it's funny when free speech is silently killed.

No, we're laughing at your foot stomping hissy fit.

 

[Silhouette]

Yeah, it's funny when free speech is silently killed.

No, we're laughing at your foot stomping hissy fit.

So there is a "we". Thanks for admitting it finally... If anyone had doubts this is a cult acting in concert methodically towards an Agenda, mdk just nudged your doubts a little further away..

 

[Davros]

Yeah, it's funny when free speech is silently killed.

No, we're laughing at your foot stomping hissy fit.

So there is a "we". Thanks for admitting it finally... If anyone had doubts this is a cult acting in concert methodically towards an Agenda, mdk just nudged your doubts a little further away..

 

[TheOldSchool]

Lesbian Couple Suing Kim Davis Gets Married | Advocate.com

 

[Timmy]

I thought marriage was good for the children. Seems like a reason to ALLOW gay marriage .

 

[mdk]

Yeah, it's funny when free speech is silently killed.

No, we're laughing at your foot stomping hissy fit.

So there is a "we". Thanks for admitting it finally... If anyone had doubts this is a cult acting in concert methodically towards an Agenda, mdk just nudged your doubts a little further away..

Yes, we (Old School and I) are laughing at your foot stomping hissy fit.

I have stated on numerous occasions that I want your idiotic threads to stay open. People like you, with their constant whining, harping, and, lying about gay people, have driven countless allies right into the awaiting arms of the gay rights movement. Your rabidly blind anti-gay narrative has done the gay community a great service. Hell, I think you should get nominated for a PFLAG award for your tirelessly effort. lol.

Thank you, Sil. Please keep up the mediocre work.

 

[Silhouette]

Lesbian Couple Suing Kim Davis Gets Married | Advocate.com

Strawman much?

What does that have to do with Christians' rights to not be involved in normalizing homosexuality in our culture?